USPTO Patents Application 10780008

Patent

Docket No. 03-4034

10 ?; . $

REMARKS

This Reply is responsive to the non-final Office Action 1 of June 15, 2006. Claims I -44
were presented for examination and were rejected. No claims are added or canceled. Claims t,
17, 1 8, 19, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43 and 44 are independent claims and all are amended. No new matter
is added as detailed below. Claims i-44 are pending.

Claims I, 4-6, 8, 1 1, 12, 16-19, 21-23, 25, 27-29 and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§1 02(a) as being anticipated by Menon el aJ. (U.S. H2079, hereinafter "Menon"). Claim 2 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Hunter et a!.
(U.S. 4,751,697, hereinafter "Hunter"). Claims 3, 13-15, 20, 30-32, 43 and 44 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Coombes et al. (U.S. 6,650,908,
hereinafter "Coombes")- Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1.03(a) as being
unpatentable over Menon. Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1.03 (a) as being
unpatentable over Menon in vi ew of Wilson (U.S. 5,185,796, hereinafter "Wilson"). Claims 39-
42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1.03(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Coombes
further in view of Hunter et al. (U.S. 4/75 1,697, hereinafter "Hunter"). Applicant respectfully
traverses these rejections because principal reference Menon is deficient and fails to disclose or
suggest all claim limitations in each of the independent claims and, therefore, in each of the
pending claims Consider, e.g., claim S :

' I he Office Action may conutin a number of statement charavton/.mg the oiled retenmws amf.'or the claim:-, which Applicant
may not o-pressslv identity herein Regardless of whether or not .•«>> such statement h nfcrrtWW herein. Applicant does not
automatically subscribe to or fnaauiesoe m, am »uch statement. Further, sthmce with regard to rejection oh a dependent claim,
when such chum depends, ■tucctly cm indtteeih. I'eoui an independent claim which Applicant tit-ems allowable for reason:-;
provided herein, is «o1 acquiescence to such rejection of that dependent claim, but is recognition by Applicant tfrat sucb
previously lodged (ejection is moot based on remarks amhoi amendments presented herein relative to thai independent claim

15

Patent

Docket No. 03-4034

10 ?; . $

A patch panel system, comprising: an interface unit that includes a plurality of
ports configured to connect to a plurality of user devices-, the interface unit being configured
to: recei ve one or more analog signals from a user device of the plurality of user devices
via a port of the plurality of ports, generate a packet from the one or more analog signals, and
transmit the packet; and a radio unit configured to: receive the packet, convert the packet to a
depacketi zed radio, signal , and transmit the depacketized radio signal over a. radio channel .
(Claim 1, emphasis added)

Claim 1, as currently amended, clearly calls for a patch panel system which comprises, mferalia,
a radio unit which is configured to mteralia convert a packet to a depacketized radio signal and
transmit that depacketized radio signal over a radio channel. Support, for this amendment can he
found in Applicant's specification, as filed, at least on page 10, paragraph [0036]. In Applicant's
Fig. 1, the radio unit would be one of 130-1 to 130-3 and the signal would be transmitted over
one of antenna 135-1 to 135-3, respectively. However, Menon does not show a depacketized
radio signal being transmitted over a radio channel, as explained below.

In the Office Action, page 2, the Examiner applies Menon's element number 64 (Menon,
Fig. 2) against Applicant's radio unit (Applicant's Fig. 1, 130-1, 130-2 or 130-3). In other
words, Menon's wireless subsystem 64 is asserted by the Examiner as being allegedly equivalent
to Applicant's radio, e.g., radio unit 130-1 . That being the case, it follows that the Examiner
would view Menon's transmission 22 as being equivalent to Applicant's radio transmission (that
which is transmitted from, or received by, e.g., antenna 135-1). Indeed, the Examiner makes this
association and applies Menon, column 7, lines 39-41 against Applicant's radio unit configured
to receive the packet and transmit the radio signal over a radio channel : "The radio unit of
Menon et al. receives the packet and transmits the signal wirelessly over a radio channel
(Column 7, lines 39-41) " (Office Action, page 2) This section of Menon says:

16

Patent

Docket No. 03-4034

10 ?; . $

''Wireless subsystems 64, 66 may each comprise any suitable device
operable to manage one or more communications channels over wireless interface
22." (Menon, col. 7, lines 39-41).

Bui, the deficiency in Menon which appears to have been overlooked by the Examiner in the

application of this art against Applicant's claims is that Menon 's wireless transmission 22 is

limited to wireless transmission of f' \< KI I > only. Consider the following relevant sections of

Menon:

In one embodiment, the voice, lax, and data traffic are communicated over
wireless interface 22 in packets of data. ( Menon, col. 3, lines 63-64, emphasis added)

Wireless router 14 also receives data packets from PSTN gateway 16a and
packet network 20 destined for subscriber 1 2, and wireless router 14 communicates
the packets to subscriber 1 2 over wireless interface 22 . (Menon, col. 4, lines 31-35, emphasis
added)

In addition, wireless router 14 may receive packets containing voice, fax, and/or
data traffic destined tor subscriber 1 2 from PSTN gateway 1 6 or packet, network 20, and
wireless router 1 4 communicates the incoming packets to subscriber 1 2 over^yireless
interface 22. (Menon, col. 5, lines 46-50. emphasis added)

Wireless subsystems 64, 66 may, for example, establish a communications
channel over wireless interface 22 and then transmit and receive data packets over
wireless in terfa.ce 22. (Menon, col. 7, lines 27-30, emphasis added)

In one aspect of operation, fixed wireless unit 50 and wireless router 14
communicate over , wireless , in ter face 22 and exchange voice, fax, and data traffic
contained in data packets ( Menon, col. 1, lines 59-62, emphasis added)

The packets are communicated to wireless router 14 over wireless
interface 22 (Menon, col. 8, lines 1-3, emphasis added)

This may include, for example, wireless subsystem 64 receiving the
packets from wireless router 14 over wireless interface 22 . (Menon, col. 9, lines
9-11, emphasis added)

This may include, for example, wireless subsystem 66 in wireless router 14
receiving packets from subscriber 12 over wireless interface 22. (Menon, col. 9, lines
34-36, emphasis added)

17

Patent

Docket No. 03-4034

10 ?; . $

Based on the foregoing excerpts from Menon, it is clear that the wireless interface 22 is
dedicated to transmission of packets. Indeed, there is no discussion in Menon of anything other
than this kind of transmission via communication link 22. Accordingly, Menon does not disclose
or suggest: "a radio unit configured to: receive the packet, convert the packet to a depacketized
radio signal, and transmit the depacketized radio signal over a radio channel" as recited in claim
1 . Menon' s "signals' are not "depacketized."

MPEP § 2.131 states that to anticipate a claim, the reference must teach every element of
the claim. " A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the cl aim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference " Verclegaal Bros,
v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F 2d 628, 631,2USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed Cir, .1987). "The

identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim." See

Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F. 2d 1226, 1236, 9USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989),
In this instance, the reference does not teach Applicant's recited radio unit because it does not
teach conversion of the packet to a d< ed radio signal and does not teach transmission, of

0k dqvu kt tf /ed radio signal over a radio channel. On this basis alone, the 35 U.S.C. § 1 02(a)
rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn and the claim allowed. In addition, there may be other
differences between Menon and Applicant's claim 1.

All of the other independent claims, which have been rejected either as being anticipated
by Menon or as being unpatentable over Menon in view of other references, have been amended
si milarly to amended claim i . Each of the other applied references, namely Hunter, Coombes,
and Wilson, was cited for reasons unrelated to this deficiency in teaching reference Menon and,
therefore, does not cure this deficiency in Menon. Therefore, all of the other independent claims,

18

Patent

Docket No. 03-4034

10 ?; . $

namely claims 17, 18, 19, 34, 35 36, 39, 43 and 44 are allowable for reasons given above with
respect to claim 1.

ASS of the dependent claims are likewise allowable, at least for reasons based on their
dependencies from allowable base claims. 'Hie dependent claims may also be allowable for
reasons based on their individual recitations. For example, claims 8 and 25 depend from claims
1 and 1 9, respectively, are rejected as being anticipated by Menem, and are allowable for reasons
based on their dependencies from allowable base claims as noted above But, in addition, they
recite "wherein the radio signal includes one of an amplitude modulated waveform and a
frequency modulated waveform" where AM and FM transmission are not disclosed in Menon.

The Examiner cites Menon, column 6, lines 44-48, against claims 8 and 25 as disclosing
FM transmission. But, this section of Menon discusses dual tone muiti -frequency (DTMF)
decoding to support push button dialing in telephones or fax machines, and DTMF is not FM
transmission. Assuming, arguendo, that DTMF is FM, which it isn't, then this section of Menon
is still not applicable against Applicant's claims 8 and 25 because this section is discussing the
activity of DTMF inside Menon 5 s telephone interface 58, not within subsystem 64 which the
Examiner is reading on Applicant's radio unit. If FM did exist in Menon, which it does not, it
would be the radio unit which would utilize FM, so the mere usage of DTMF in a component
that isn't the alleged equivalent of the "radio unir certainly cannot be relevant to Applicant's
claims 8 or 25. Thus, Menon does not disclose or suggest "wherein the radio signal includes one
of an amplitude modulated waveform and a frequency modulated waveform" as recited in claims
8 and 25 which are additionally allowable on this basis alone.

19

Patent

Docket No. 03-4034

10 ?; . $

In view of the above. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of all claims be
withdrawn and the claims allowed.

Applicant reserves its rights to present additional arguments against Menon relative to
other independent and dependent claim elements, if the Examiner does not pass this case to
issue.

20

Patent

E>ockc! No. 03-4034

S/N 10/780,008

CONCLUSION

Reconsideration and allowance ace respectfully requested based on the above
amendments and remarks; it is respeci ■ u, submitted that all claims and. therefore, this
application are in condition for allowance.

If there are any remaining issues or if the Examiner believes that a telephone
conversation with Applicant's attorney would be helpful in expediting the prosecution of this
application, the Examiner is invited to call the undersigned at (972) 718-4800,

To the extent necessary, a petition for extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
hereby made, the fee for which should be charged to deposit account number 07-2347. Please
charge any other fees due, or credit any overpayment made to that account.

Verizon

1515 Courthouse Road, Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22201-2909
Tel: 703.351.3586
Fax: 703.351.3665
CUSTOMER NO. 25537

Respectfully submitted,

Date: June 12, 2007

Joel Wall

Attorney for Applicant
Registration No. 25,648

21